NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIAM V. SEARS, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2021-1450

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-5881, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________

Decided: September 14, 2021

______________________

WILLIAM V. SEARS, JR., San Antonio, TX, pro se. 

 MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ELIZABETH 

MARIE HOSFORD; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN KRISCH, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2021
2 SEARS v. MCDONOUGH

Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Sears, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals the 

decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims in Sears v. Wilkie, No. 19-5881, 2020 WL 5200446

(Vet. App. Aug. 25, 2020). Mr. Sears primarily challenges 

the Veterans Court’s factual determinations or applications of law to fact, issues over which we lack jurisdiction.

To the extent his informal brief can be liberally construed 

as raising a legal argument, it lacks merit. For the reasons 

given below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

I

Mr. Sears served in the Army from September 1988 to 

May 1989 and from January to September 1991. S.A. 2, 

23.1 He has filed claims seeking service connection and 

compensation for a number of disabilities.

• In November 1991, Mr. Sears sought compensation 

for a right ankle disability, and that claim was 

granted. S.A. 3.

• On November 15, 1999, Mr. Sears made a claim for 

service connection for a back disability that was initially denied, but after filing a claim of clear and 

unmistakable error, he was ultimately granted service connection for the spine disability, effective November 15, 1999. S.A. 4. He was assigned a 10% 

rating for degenerative disc disease (DDD) from November 15, 1999, to June 28, 2013, and a 20% rating 

thereafter. S.A. 5.

1 Citations to S.A. refer to the supplemental appendix filed by Respondent-Appellee.

Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2021
SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 3

• On June 28, 2013, Mr. Sears filed a claim for service 

connection for right and left hip disorders, including 

right and left hip degenerative joint disease (DJD), 

which was granted in February 2017 for right and 

left hip DJD. For the left hip, he was rated 10% for 

limited extension since June 28, 2013, but that rating was replaced with a 50% rating from December 

15, 2016. S.A. 6. For the right hip, since June 28, 

2013, Mr. Sears had a 10% rating. S.A. 6–7.

• In February 2017, Mr. Sears was awarded disability 

compensation for thoracic-spine-related radiculopathy in both legs, with 10% ratings since October 30, 

2014. S.A. 6.

Mr. Sears appealed the effective dates and the ratings 

of his thoracic spine and hip disabilities to the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals, which denied the appeals except to increase the right and left hip radiculopathy ratings from 

10% to 20%. S.A. 22–23.

He then appealed the same issues to the Veterans 

Court. In a single-judge memorandum decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s ruling, except to correct a 

typographical error in the Board’s order. S.A. 3, 6. After a 

motion for reconsideration, a panel ordered that the singlejudge decision remain the decision of the Court and entered 

judgment on December 2, 2020. Mr. Sears timely appeals.

II

We have limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court. We decide “all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory 

provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We review the Veterans 

Court’s legal determinations de novo. Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392, 393 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Except to the extent 

that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we cannot

review a challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a case.

Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2021
4 SEARS v. MCDONOUGH

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 

1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

III

Most of the arguments raised by Mr. Sears involve factual determinations or the application of law to fact, which

we lack jurisdiction to consider. Mr. Sears has potentially 

made one legal argument within our jurisdiction. To the 

extent Mr. Sears argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted its standard of review to be deferential to or to require adoption of the Secretary’s litigation position, rather 

than considering Mr. Sears’s arguments, we agree this is a 

legal argument within our jurisdiction. Garrison v. Nicholson, 494 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

But it is a legal argument without merit because the 

Veterans Court did not simply adopt the Secretary’s arguments. The Veterans Court cited and used the correct 

standards of review for the relevant issues.2 Both the assignment of a disability rating and the determination of an 

effective date are factual findings, which the Veterans 

Court reviews for clear error. Pierce v. Principi, 18 Vet. 

App. 440, 443 (1990) (disability rating); Evans v. West, 12 

Vet. App. 396, 401 (1999) (effective date). The Veterans 

Court’s decision correctly identified and explained the 

“clear error” standard of review for both the assignment of 

a disability rating and the determination of an effective 

date. S.A. 7–8.

Nor did the Veterans Court fail to review any legal 

questions under the correct de novo standard. See Butts v. 

Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 539 (1993). Indeed, the only purported “conclusions of law” that Mr. Sears argues should 

not have received deference regard the assignment of a 

2 For the same reason, the Veterans Court did not

violate Mr. Sears’s procedural due process rights by supposedly adopting the Secretary’s position.

Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2021
SEARS v. MCDONOUGH 5

disability rating and the effective date. But, as we just explained, these are actually questions of fact, which the Veterans Court properly reviewed for clear error.

V

We have carefully considered all the other arguments 

Mr. Sears raised. Because they all involve factual determinations or application of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss the remainder 

of the case for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-1450 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2021